Monday, February 29, 2016

FEB 29, 2016 GOOD LENR NEWS, DISCUSSING THE ESSENTIALS

MOTTODAILY NOTESa) Improving the context of LENRI want to discuss today with you about HOW to create a better context, a more favorable environment for LENR.We are forced to accept that the present context/environment of LENR is unfavorable- conceptual chaos. overwhelming complexity and diversity real and historically created outer and inner conflicts, humiliating uncertainty, search for the unique and global solution, myth of the "key"Paradoxically this is now combined with or even grafted on the reality of an unique solution- so much, too much depends now on the Report of the 1MW plant's year long test- the field has no other cards of high value to play out.What is the best LENR classic has today? Perhaps the three advanced PdD groups-ENEA, SKINR/Missouri U, CEES/Texas U. about which we do not know much- but even in my boldest dreams I do not hope they will discover something fundamentalabout how LENR works or that they will obtain 1000% reproducibility at tens of watts level excess heat.Progress is difficult in a context of an immiscible blend of fragment's of incompatible truths. Technology first can create an healthier context than scientism-at-any-price.We must create a competitional context for the Rossi technologyb) An essay by Edmund StormsEd was inspired by this paper given in Ego OutBeyond Experiment: Why the scientific method may be old hathttp://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/He wrote:(The above paper) is interesting, although it does not apply directly to LENR. It nevertheless, reveals a basic flaw in how physics evaluates the descriptions of reality, i.e. theory. In conventional science, a theory is evaluated by determining whether it can be falsified. I suggest this is the wrong criteria because most ideas can not be falsified. For example, can the claim for the Einstein concept of relativity be falsified? The answer is no. The idea is accepted because it allows real events to be related to other real events. The idea allows progress based on predictions that are found to be true. Nothing is falsified. The concept is accepted because it is useful, not because it is real or complete. Nothing more is needed. In fact, some aspects of the concept clearly are wrong because they conflict with what can be observed.

The concept we call LENR and the resulting explanations can not be falsified. Such a criteria is pointless. The important criteria is whether the ideas and concepts are useful in understanding Nature and improving life.

In the case of LENR, the phenomenon is clearly real, the energy has the potential to improve life, and the theories help in advancing the understanding and application. So, why is the claim rejected? Why is agreement about the most basic aspects of the phenomenon not obtained, even in the field itself? What criteria can we agree is important and can we agree on the consequence of its application?

I expect a conventional scientist who dares to step into the swamp that is LENR comes away with the same impression. The field is dominated by people who are ignorant of what is known about LENR, are not trained in general science, and cannot agree about anything. The rational discussions are drowned out and the sources of factual information are not acknowledged in the discussions. They go away with a rational opinion that this field is not science. And now Rossi reinforces this opinion.

I predict that any response to this description will demonstrate once again this lack of agreement. This is not to say that agreement is required or expected about everything. Agreement is only required about basic concepts on which a logical structure can be built. That agreement is not present in this field. If you disagree, you prove my point.

My answers and questions to Ed's essayI am very grateful to Ed for this sincere and condensed writing, it helps me to understand the approach of the essential LENR problem. For now it is sadly obvious that nothing scientific- falsifying, the brightest theory ever, the most convincing lab experiment repeatable at will- nothing, except an commercial product and technologycan redo LENR the lost prestige and place in mainstream science.Ed states:LENR, the phenomenon is clearly real, the energy has the potential to improve life, and the theories help in advancing the understanding and application.I agree that the phenomenon is real- however the rest of the phrase has to be demonstrated; is it surely true for the first discovered form of CF/LENR? Can the 007 histogram extended- and how much? It is a great difference between to exist and to live, to be able to grow.He also asks with discontent:Why is agreement about the most basic aspects of the phenomenon not obtained, even in the field itself? I can answer here: a deeply wicked problem is difficult per se, however its degree of difficulty is enhanced by the vision it creates in the minds of the solver-in-spe- false ireal and misleading. I think Ed undervalues the absolute difficulty of the LENR problem due to complexity, diversity, strangeness, novelty, dynamicity, multiplicity,extent, changes and so on. He thinks we can have a sketch of a solution based on the great but also narrow and disappointing PdD experience. There must be a simple. logical explanation, solution way. This can be true- or not. If the problem is really wicked, if we really know few things of a lot, then . Ed's nano-crack-Hydroton has few traits of a conqueror, game changer theory. Synergy in active sites is a basic principle with applications much beyond LENR.This is true in part- but why?The field is dominated by people who are ignorant of what is known about LENR, are not trained in general science, and cannot agree about anything.I doubt that the field is dominated by some group or individuals today- it is a disturbing cognitive anarchy there; I am trying to obtain agreement for some working principles first- not in a successful way.But, dear Ed suppose rationality wins and from tomorrow knowledgeable people replace the ignorants and a general agreement is established around what you wish.Can you predict, describe what will happen then?Thank you!DAILY NEWS1) Rossi: E-Cat X Can Produce Electricity and No Heathttp://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/28/rossi-e-cat-x-can-produce-electricity-and-no-heat/2) The E-Cat: Unlimited LENR Power For The Future [Kindle Edition]
By Hank Mills http://www.prairietr.com/the-e-cat-unlimited-lenr-power-for-the-future-jutnjpo.pdf3) In Russian: What is inside Andrea Rossi's black box?http://bolshoyforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=473483.msg6333268#msg63332684) The expected Les Echos paper cold fusion puts physics on fireLa « fusion froide » enflamme la physique

17) This was published a few weeks ago but I have received it only now from a friend

DON'T MENTION COLD FUSION

Far, far away from the galaxy of mainstream
nuclear fusion, a small but dedicated band of
rebels is still devoted to the heresy of cold
fusion. The idea that nuclear fusion reactions
actually don't need huge temperatures or big
kit to happen has no agreed theory to back it
up, and has had a bad rep since ultimately
unreproducible claims were made back in the
198Os. But rebranded as "low energy nuclear
reactions" (LENR), it lives on.
Perhaps the loudest of the mavericks is
ltalian enqineerAndrea Rossi. who savs he
-
has been operating his "E-Caf'cold fusion
reactors, with a fuel of nickel powder and
hydrogen, since 2011, Now in partnership
with US company lndustrial Heat, Rossi
claims to be operating a 1-megawatt reactor
producing heat for a secret customer in the
US for a one-year trial. Russian researcher
Alexander Parkhomov and others have, they
say, reverse-en gineered the nickel-hydrogen
reaction in the E-Cat and generated heatfrom
an unknown reaction, morethan could be
produced by any chemical process,
Rossi hasjust been granted a US patent
for the E-Cat technology, and theJapanese
government has restarted funding for LENR
research. apparently on the basis of work by
Toyota and Mitsubishi. Few researchers give
the results much credence, but they have
attracted the attention of serious industrial
players outside Japan, too. Airbus is one of the
few willing to make a public show of interest,
hosting a conference on low energy nuclear
reactions in Toulouse, France, last October.

New Scientist l 30January 2016LENR IN CONTEXT-2Engineering: more than math and science

7 comments:

Ed Storms is very right about one thing he says, that is in the description of the "swamp" of science. What Ed demurs from saying is that the worst "swamp" behaviour of all is within the cold fusion/lenr field itself. There endless insider backstabbing and honey pot trap setting so as to block those in the field making headway has been the most troublesome of all in delaying progress in the field.

There is another path to understanding LENR. That path is found in the stars. Here follows a summation of that route to LENR understanding by Prof. Pierre-Marie Robitaille

Now that liquid metallic hydrogen has been advanced as asolar building block, it is likelythat opposition will be raised, for many will foresee unsettlingchanges in astronomy. A liquid Sun brings into questionour understanding of nearly every facet of this science:from stellar structure and evolution, the existence of blackholes, the primordial atom, dark energy, anddark matter. It is not easy to abandon familiar ideas andbegin anew.

However, some scientists will realize that a liquid metallichydrogen model of the Sun, not only opens new avenues,but it also unifies much of human knowledge into a cohesiveand elegant framework. A liquid metallic Sun invites astronomyto revisit the days of Kirchhoff and Stewart, andto recall the powerful lessons learned from studying the thermalemission of materials. It emphasizes that our telescopesobserve structural realities and not illusions.

In recognizing the full character of these structures, all of thegreat solar astronomers from Galileo, to Secchi, toHale are honored. These observers knew that solar structures(granules, sunspots, pores, flares, prominences, etc. . . )were manifesting something profound about nature.

For astrophysicists, the Sun imparts lessons which maywell have direct applications for mankind. For instance, thesolar body holds the key to fusion. If the Sun is made fromcondensed matter, then our experiments should focus onthis state. Sunspots may also guard the secret to synthesizingmetallic hydrogen on Earth. If sunspots are truly metallic, as reflected by their magnetic fields, then attemptsto form liquid metallic hydrogen on Earth mightbenefit from the presence of magnetic fields. Our analysisof the photospheric constitution and the continuous thermalspectrum should be trying to tell us something about liquidsand their long range order.

And once again you indulge in egregious bashing of the PdD approach. The problem in LENR is not PdD or NiH, it is dirty science politics done by incompetent physicists (if they were competent, they would be in a lab, not functioning as bureaucrats) that have (and are still) preventing ANY flow of funding to LENR research.

LENR doesn't need "1000% reproducibility..at tens of watts", it needs 60% reproducibility at 1.1X input energy that can be obtained by multiple research groups.

If "I" were to try to get into LENR on a personally funded shoestring, I would use the PdD system in the following way. Fabricate some thermocouples using one nickel and one Pd wire. Use the Spawar electrodeposition method to electroplate a coating of Pd and D2 from an LiOH electrolyte under N2 or Ar on a dozen or so such TC's. Remove them from the electrolyte, wash with DI water, dry, and slip into a small heated chamber under D2 gas.

The one really positive thing about the PdD system is that it is known that the LENR process can be initiated at high levels AT OR NEAR ROOM TEMPERATURE.

What we need is more brains, doing more experiments of all sorts, not concentrating on NiH. But that takes MONEY, which, again, is denied to the field by dirty politics.